Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/551

 COE V. OAYUGA LAKB B. 00. 637 �favor of an assignee. The rights of action which Stillman had against the defendant Morgan were assigned by him to the plaintiff by the transfer of the said instruments by Stillman to the plaintiff after their maturity. As Stillman, from a time prier to the maturity of the instruments to tha time of the trial, was always a citizen of New York, and as the defendant Morgan was, when the instruments were transferred to Stillman, and when this suit was commenced, and at the time of the trial, a citizen of New York, and there is nothing in the bill of exceptions to show that he was ever a citizen of a different state from Stillman, there is nothing to show that a suit could ever have been prosecuted in this court by Stillman against Morgan, to recover against Morgan on his said contract, if Stillman had net made said assignment. It follows, therefore, that this court bas no jurisdiction of this suit against the said Morgan, unless this is a case of a promissory note negotiable by the law merchant, as it is not the case of a bill of exchange. As the suit against the defend- ant Morgan is brought as a suit on his indorsements of promissory notes, the case is a case of promissory notes, within the statute, if it is a case of such indorsements. �The instruments, aside from the seal of the Company, have all the qualities of promissory notes, and of promissory notes made by the Company as a corporation. They are in the name of the Com- pany, it promises to pay, and it signs them by its president. But they were sealed with the seal of the company, and it was a corpora- tion ; and said seal was duly impressed on them by its president and treasiirer, by its authority, at the time the notes were signed by it. From what appears in the bill of exceptions, it may properly bo inferred that the seal referred to was the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the words "Seal of the Cayuga Lake Eailroad Company" appear impressed on the face of each instrument as the impression of the seal referred to, though these facts are not thus distinctly stated in the bill of exceptions. The answer of the de- fendant Morgan states that the company was a corporation, and had and used a corporate seal, and that the said instruments wfre executed by it under its corporate seal. The instruments do not, .n words, refer to a seal otherwise than as said impressions contain the words they do. �In order to be within the exceptions in the statute the instrument must not only be a promissory note, but must be one negotiable by the law merchant. There is no distinction made by the statute between a promissory note made by an individual and a promissory ��� �